1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office for the charge of embezzlement and embezzlement on the grounds that B and eight other persons were raising funds or arbitrarily disposing of the company's property while operating the company C.

The prosecutor of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office dismissed the plaintiff's accusation on November 17, 2015, and the plaintiff appealed to the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office but was dismissed on May 9, 2016.

On January 13, 2017, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, and the defendant dismissed it.

(2016 B. 431) 【Grounds for Recognition. 【The Plaintiff’s decision to dismiss the instant lawsuit as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit as stated in the evidence No. 1, indicated in the written opinion dated March 20, 2017, stated that the decision to dismiss the reappeal was a decision to dismiss the reappeal by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office (2016 B. 431).

With respect to a non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor on the part of the claim for revocation against the public prosecutor, the appeal under the Public Prosecutor's Office Act, the reappeal procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act, the application procedure for adjudication under the Criminal Procedure Act, and the constitutional complaint, the legitimacy of the appeal can only be contested by the public prosecutor's disposition of non-prosecution disposition, or the appeal or the ruling of reappeal against the public prosecutor's appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu2271, Oct. 10, 1989; 89Nu3014, Jan. 23, 199). The part of the lawsuit in this case seeking

Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act divides the type of administrative litigation into an appeal litigation, a party litigation, a civil suit, and an agency litigation. Article 4 of the same Act provides that “a revocation litigation seeking the revocation or alteration of a disposition, etc. by an administrative agency,” “a litigation seeking confirmation of invalidity, etc.” confirming the validity or existence of a disposition, etc. by an administrative agency, and “litigation seeking confirmation of illegality of omission,” which confirms that the omission by an administrative agency is illegal.

In addition to the form of such a lawsuit, administrative agencies are fixed.